|
majid_sabet
Jul 13, 2010, 3:00 AM
Post #2 of 140
(20813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
There is something wrong with this design. the trigger wires on the cam lobes are too close to the outside surface and over time, they will break apart.
or may be I am just blind and a dumb engineer
http://totemcams.com/...75&ap=1242136439
|
|
|
|
|
charlie.elverson
Jul 13, 2010, 3:43 AM
Post #3 of 140
(20769 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2009
Posts: 131
|
those are pretty interesting looking. Anyone out there have any experience with these?
|
|
|
|
|
cornstateclimber
Jul 13, 2010, 4:36 AM
Post #4 of 140
(20726 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2005
Posts: 324
|
different design, id like to give em a try! where are they from? not much info on totem
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 13, 2010, 4:59 AM
Post #5 of 140
(20712 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
The are possibly the biggest advancement in camming technology since the flexible stem.
They have a range and weight and strength comparable to C4s. Yet that have more holding power and unique capabilities.
Time will tell how these perform. Personally I would like to see a graph of their effective camming angle throughout there range. As this is the important variable that is unknown.
They also claim to have the narrowest head width which could be great news for those who love narrow heads widths. There doesn't seem much not to like about them but until they have proven themselves on rock we can only speculate.
(This post was edited by patto on Jul 13, 2010, 5:09 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
Bolter
Jul 13, 2010, 8:22 AM
Post #6 of 140
(20663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2009
Posts: 50
|
I dont like them.
The cam shape is going to get stuck easy when fully cammed.
Looks like the are bulky and heavy.
Pretty funky.
Pulling on the cam from the back. Interesting but claimed extra holding power is not needed.
Rarely when a cam fails because of holding power. Parts bend, bad placement, bad rock, ETC.
There is this cam angle thing. Different throughout the range of the cam??
80 bucks too.
Plenty of better options out there. The same ol cams still work from 20 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Carnage
Jul 13, 2010, 1:50 PM
Post #7 of 140
(20566 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2007
Posts: 923
|
majid_sabet wrote: There is something wrong with this design. the trigger wires on the cam lobes are too close to the outside surface and over time, they will break apart. or may be I am just blind and a dumb engineer http://totemcams.com/...75&ap=1242136439
a valid concern. If this was BD putting these things out, i'd say something like "BD knows how to and is smart enough to test this kind of thing, i'm sure it's fine"
since these are being put out by a startup, i'll say "I like the idea, I want them to work, but i'll wait till 2nd gen so they can workout things like this."
|
|
|
|
|
the_climber
Jul 13, 2010, 2:19 PM
Post #8 of 140
(20545 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 9, 2003
Posts: 6142
|
Bolter wrote: I dont like them. The cam shape is going to get stuck easy when fully cammed. Looks like the are bulky and heavy. Pretty funky. Pulling on the cam from the back. Interesting but claimed extra holding power is not needed. Rarely when a cam fails because of holding power. Parts bend, bad placement, bad rock, ETC. There is this cam angle thing. Different throughout the range of the cam?? 80 bucks too. Plenty of better options out there. The same ol cams still work from 20 years ago.
I'm sorry I must have missed the part where you said that you've used them, before you stated you didn't like them.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Jul 13, 2010, 2:24 PM
Post #9 of 140
(20534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
Bolter wrote: I dont like them. The cam shape is going to get stuck easy when fully cammed.
I am pretty sure all cams get stuck when over cammed.
In reply to: Looks like the are bulky and heavy. Pretty funky. Pulling on the cam from the back. Interesting but claimed extra holding power is not needed.
In reply to: Rarely when a cam fails because of holding power. Parts bend, bad placement, bad rock, ETC. There is this cam angle thing. Different throughout the range of the cam?? 80 bucks too. Plenty of better options out there. The same ol cams still work from 20 years ago.
Name the cam that holds in an extreme downward flare. If it is already out, I want to know about it.
|
|
|
|
|
patmay81
Jul 13, 2010, 3:29 PM
Post #10 of 140
(20477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2006
Posts: 1081
|
Bolter wrote: I dont like them. The cam shape is going to get stuck easy when fully cammed. Looks like the are bulky and heavy. Pretty funky. Pulling on the cam from the back. Interesting but claimed extra holding power is not needed. Rarely when a cam fails because of holding power. Parts bend, bad placement, bad rock, ETC. There is this cam angle thing. Different throughout the range of the cam?? 80 bucks too. Plenty of better options out there. The same ol cams still work from 20 years ago.
improved holding power would be awesome for situations where ordinary cams may walk, where you are dealing with flares, unwanted cam rotation, etc.
You can't claim the "cam shape is going to get stuck easy" if you have never placed the cam. I know what you are talking about, the flat appearance of the cam lobe. but this could be a saving feature if it is placed in an over cammed situation. play around with one and then complain about how easily it gets stuck.
80 bucks is not that much to ask for a cam that does all this cam claims. I would actually buy the whole set at that price. Other specialty cams run up to $100+ (link cams specifically) and in my opinion are worth every dollar of it.
These are obviously not a "first set" of cams. And I would even say they are not a set of cams that 90% of the trad climbers out there should be looking into. But for those who like shallow flared cracks, or clean aid, these might be a perfect piece.
I'm not saying they ARE going to be prefect, but they could be. please don't rag on a product before its even been used. lets try and be optimistic!
The one thing I noticed that could be validly criticized was the range; it may be a little small. but as a supplemental cam, that doesn't really matter.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 13, 2010, 3:49 PM
Post #11 of 140
(20455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
majid_sabet wrote: There is something wrong with this design. the trigger wires on the cam lobes are too close to the outside surface and over time, they will break apart. or may be I am just blind and a dumb engineer
Um. They are the LOAD BEARING wires on the cam lobes!!
patmay81 wrote: The one thing I noticed that could be validly criticized was the range; it may be a little small. but as a supplemental cam, that doesn't really matter.
It seems that it has one on the better ranges out there of the non special range cams. These sit just below BD C4s which are on the low end of the holding power scale.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Jul 13, 2010, 4:03 PM
Post #12 of 140
(20429 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
These things are pretty radically different than your typical cam in a lot of ways. I'm in the "wait for other people to put a lot of field testing time" category.
Field durability and repair is a huge concern, given that the exposed wires are the load bearing components. Then there are all the usual concerns: lobe durability, things gunking up quickly, etc.
There is also the issue of the (edit: constant? not?) cam angle, and how that will be different than the way we typically consider effective placements along its expansion range in different kinds of flares.
VERY cool ideas here, but I'll sit around for a bit and let others check them out for me.
On the other hand, I'd gladly do an early review of them if someone sent me a couple. . .
(This post was edited by shoo on Jul 13, 2010, 4:06 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jul 13, 2010, 4:05 PM
Post #13 of 140
(20424 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
wow, interesting lobe shape. I'm curious to know what people will think of these.
As for the trigger being close to the cams, while I have no reason to think that is an engineering problem per se, I can say that I really don't like it when the triggers make it into the crack. But, without having seen one of these, I can't say if this is simply a deceptive photo.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Jul 13, 2010, 4:08 PM
Post #14 of 140
(20417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
Bolter wrote: I dont like them. The cam shape is going to get stuck easy when fully cammed. Looks like the are bulky and heavy. Pretty funky. Pulling on the cam from the back. Interesting but claimed extra holding power is not needed. Rarely when a cam fails because of holding power. Parts bend, bad placement, bad rock, ETC. There is this cam angle thing. Different throughout the range of the cam?? 80 bucks too. Plenty of better options out there. The same ol cams still work from 20 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Jul 13, 2010, 4:11 PM
Post #15 of 140
(20412 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
The diagonal pattern on the lobes is an interesting trick (theoretically increases friction by "catching" features while maintaining camming angle).
A course cross-hatch might be even better, since it could catch on tiny horizontal features as well.
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Jul 13, 2010, 4:13 PM
Post #16 of 140
(20404 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
patmay81 wrote: Bolter wrote: I dont like them. The cam shape is going to get stuck easy when fully cammed. Looks like the are bulky and heavy. Pretty funky. Pulling on the cam from the back. Interesting but claimed extra holding power is not needed. Rarely when a cam fails because of holding power. Parts bend, bad placement, bad rock, ETC. There is this cam angle thing. Different throughout the range of the cam?? 80 bucks too. Plenty of better options out there. The same ol cams still work from 20 years ago. have you ever even placed a cam... any cam... ever?
His name is Bolter.
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 13, 2010, 4:13 PM
Post #17 of 140
(20403 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
(apparently it doesn't need to be resaid)
Those aren't the triggers going into the crack they are the LOAD BEARING CABLES. (analogous to the stem)
The lobes are shaped like that because they have a larger nominal camming angle!! (20 degrees apparently). But because of the direct cam loading they have an effective camming angle much lower. (13degrees)
Patent design info can be found here: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7014156.html
(the patent number listed on website is incorrect)
(This post was edited by patto on Jul 13, 2010, 4:43 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb
Jul 13, 2010, 4:36 PM
Post #18 of 140
(20374 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2004
Posts: 832
|
I'm intrigued by the smallest two sizes.
I'm not in the habit of expecting radically flared placements to hold falls and doubt I ever will be but the range in the blue size is the same as a .3 c4 (ie more then a blue master cam) which could be really nice if the head width is as narrow as claimed and if the mechanism doesn't break in normal uses like link cams.
It is slightly annoying that the range on the yellow starts a couple of mm higher then a yellow metolius (and probably a c3 or alien)
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jul 13, 2010, 4:59 PM
Post #19 of 140
(20344 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
patto wrote: (apparently it doesn't need to be resaid) Those aren't the triggers going into the crack they are the LOAD BEARING CABLES. (analogous to the stem) The lobes are shaped like that because they have a larger nominal camming angle!! (20 degrees apparently). But because of the direct cam loading they have an effective camming angle much lower. (13degrees) Patent design info can be found here: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7014156.html (the patent number listed on website is incorrect)
I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the triggers. While they appear to be in the middle, they also appear to be closer to the lobes than on C4s.
|
|
|
|
|
kobaz
Jul 13, 2010, 11:19 PM
Post #20 of 140
(20215 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 726
|
I've been following Totem cams since they were still prototyping.
1) They look damn sexy
2) The videos show some spectacular holding in less than ideal placements
3) They look damn sexy?
I hope this is the alien replacement we've all been waiting for
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 14, 2010, 4:16 AM
Post #21 of 140
(20122 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
They have their ordering page up but its sort of hidden. Better pictures on the units here.
http://www.totemcams.com/...logue/index.php?id=1
There are two weight bearing cables going to each lobe. Making twelve cables in total to the head of the unit!
What I find quite bizarre is that the two load bearing cables go to two points and thus yield two sepparate effective camming angles. This is quite different from the original design which had only 1 cable.
I am puzzled why they did this and how that can obtain consistant effective cam angle performance with this setup.
(This post was edited by patto on Jul 14, 2010, 4:23 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 14, 2010, 1:58 PM
Post #23 of 140
(19974 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
acorneau wrote: To me it looks like the cable is looped around a silver pin and isn't two separate cables.
Of course! *slaps forehead*
Thanks....
Yeah their original design called for a cable termination. But a loop while less elogant is more reliable.
(This post was edited by patto on Jul 14, 2010, 2:04 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
patmay81
Jul 14, 2010, 3:17 PM
Post #24 of 140
(19904 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2006
Posts: 1081
|
carabiner96 wrote: patmay81 wrote: Bolter wrote: I dont like them. The cam shape is going to get stuck easy when fully cammed. Looks like the are bulky and heavy. Pretty funky. Pulling on the cam from the back. Interesting but claimed extra holding power is not needed. Rarely when a cam fails because of holding power. Parts bend, bad placement, bad rock, ETC. There is this cam angle thing. Different throughout the range of the cam?? 80 bucks too. Plenty of better options out there. The same ol cams still work from 20 years ago. have you ever even placed a cam... any cam... ever? His name is Bolter.
|
|
|
|
|
mheyman
Jul 15, 2010, 3:03 AM
Post #25 of 140
(18317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2002
Posts: 607
|
Even the better pictures hide details, - but - I don't the the multiple attachment pints are change camming angle, I think they are intended to give more usable rotation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
